Wed. 22 July 2026
Cammarano v Campbell (2023)
Case Ref: LON/00AM/HMF/2022/0200
Four Tenants, One Unlicensed HMO, and a £13,643 Tribunal Award. What began as an ordinary tenancy eventually ended with four tenants taking their landlord to the First-tier Tribunal.
At the centre of the dispute was a simple question:
Should The Property Have Been Licensed As An HMO?
The tribunal concluded that it should have been, and that it had not been licensed during the relevant period. “I didn't know I needed a licence” the landlord argued that he had not realised a licence was required.
He explained that he had previously lived at the property himself and that the licensing requirements were introduced after he began renting it out. He also said that he had received no direct notification from the council and had applied for a licence shortly after discovering the requirement. The tribunal considered his explanation but ultimately found that his lack of knowledge did not amount to a reasonable excuse.
The licensing scheme had already been operating for several years, and the landlord had chosen to manage the property himself. The tenants raised other concerns, as the case was not limited to licensing. The tribunal also heard evidence concerning damp and mould, heating and hot-water problems, the boiler, fire precautions and the management of the property. The landlord disputed or explained many of these complaints. He maintained that he had attempted to deal with problems and that some of the tenants' accounts had been exaggerated.
After considering the evidence, the tribunal found the tenants' evidence reliable and was critical of several aspects of the property's management. It also considered the landlord's position and noted factors in his favour, including that he had no criminal convictions and that the conditions, while concerning, were not among the worst in the private rental sector.
Then Came The Question Of Money
The tribunal had to decide how much of the rent should be repaid. It considered the seriousness of the licensing failure, the condition of the property, the landlord's conduct and the conduct of the tenants. It ultimately awarded 60% of the relevant rent after deductions.
The four tenants received:
Tenant 1 : £4,684.03
Tenant 2 : £3,244.03
Tenant 3 : £2,090.02
Tenant 4 : £3,625.03
A total of £13,643.11, plus £600 in application and hearing fees.
The Bigger Lesson
The case shows why an RRO is not simply a question of whether a property was unlicensed. The tribunal considers the circumstances surrounding the offence, the conduct of both sides and the evidence presented. For this landlord, saying “I didn't know” was not enough to establish a reasonable excuse. But equally, the tribunal did not impose the maximum possible award. It assessed the circumstances as a whole and settled on 60%.
This article is provided for educational and general informational purposes only. It is based on a publicly available court/tribunal judgment and is intended to provide an accessible summary of the proceedings and findings contained in that judgment. It is not intended to defame, disparage or otherwise cast unwarranted negative light on any individual or organisation mentioned. Readers should refer to the original judgment for the authoritative account of the proceedings. This article does not constitute legal advice.